The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

The Chinese enjoy not only total control over internal media, but also strong leverage over international media through highly placed paid agents like Kissinger. So any inconvenient aspects of history can be wiped out or reinterpreted at will, and the use of "avoiding loss of face" is nothing but a stratagem to prevent others from doing onto China what the Chinese do unto their adversaries. A misadventure like the 1979 war with Vietnam would never be undertaken by a regime accountable for its decisions and responsible for truly maintaining face.

TKiran wrote:DavidD, we are going to cut China to its size, we are going to liberate Tibet and Xinjiang, you are still thinking that India will confine itself to Indian borders like we always did, you have not learnt a lesson, learn how we liberated Bangladesh, in 16 days, you will be wise. Yes China would still be surviving with shrunk mass, but that's the limit of Han. Everything non Han will be liberated, you don't know the power of people, you never experienced democracy.

It will not take more than a week to occupy Lhasa and dislodge PLA, you are thinking of 1 year, that's laughable. 1,00, 000 Tibetans from India Will produce those many Tibetans in Lhasa in 1year. Lhasa is just 200 km from Tawang and 300 km from Doklam. It's thousands of km from Han China. It's China that needs to lob nuclear weapons at Lhasa if at all Han are serious to hold on to Tibet, still they will not be able to hold on to Lhasa. That's the reason why Han are sh***ing in their pants now, India can cut them to size, that's the fear, they don't have any body who can save them, if India marched to Lhasa.

Why do you think China would care to hold onto Lhasa? Tibet is a buffer, it's not ground to hold at all costs, it's ground to bleed invaders dry. As mentioned in UB's post in the China thread, the Russians didn't care to hold onto Moscow, they used it to bleed Napolean. 100,000 Tibetans will produce 100,000 1 year olds in 1 year, you expect them to make a difference?

hnair wrote:DavidD is making no sense - US has a military that is magnitudes more capable than chinese ever were. And with serious intent and will to hurt not so capable opponents around the world. The US are visibly unable to eradicate armored vehicles from the hands of ISIS or even taliban, who has neither an air force, nor any industry to resupply. Yet he wants us to believe that china is going to wipe out thousands of tanks of India, who has actually got a formidable air force. All this without any losses to china

Chinese military cannot produce a handful of pivotal (including engines of frontline fighters) spares and is still dependent on a long string of European and Russian suppliers. And these are usually second string stuff, thanks to a bad reputation of copying. India, on the other hand, has a much more vast reservoir of weapons suppliers, right from the US, which has not hesitated to share really good stuff to the Russsians.

We heard similar refrain from poster Liu, where he made this absurd claim that "1000s of drones will suddenly attack LCA", while still wanting us to believe we wont ask questions on stability of chinese datalinks or reliability of the drones etc. Or that absurd claim that china can give surplus heavy weapons to Indian terrorists, who will suddenly develop a heavy logistics chain to maintain the same, since chinese gear are generally maintenance heavy

This constant "we will retain thousands of shiny military gear in a war, while you will lose all" is childish and is a chinese form of trolling in these forums.

Umm...how many armored vehicles do you think the Taliban or ISIS have? The US can eradicate any state, China included, if it really wants to. It's a matter of intent for them, not a matter of capability. China would suffer plenty of losses in such a war against India, my point is that China can replace these losses as they're almost all built completely in China.

BTW, what system does China produce still depend on European suppliers? Russian I'll give you that, but the number is dwindling by the day and Chinese replacements, albeit inferior, are available for the most part. With the whole-sale moving of Motor-Sich to Chongqing, soon they'll be available for every part.

hnair wrote:DavidD is making no sense - US has a military that is magnitudes more capable than chinese ever were. And with serious intent and will to hurt not so capable opponents around the world. The US are visibly unable to eradicate armored vehicles from the hands of ISIS or even taliban, who has neither an air force, nor any industry to resupply. Yet he wants us to believe that china is going to wipe out thousands of tanks of India, who has actually got a formidable air force. All this without any losses to china

Chinese military cannot produce a handful of pivotal (including engines of frontline fighters) spares and is still dependent on a long string of European and Russian suppliers. And these are usually second string stuff, thanks to a bad reputation of copying. India, on the other hand, has a much more vast reservoir of weapons suppliers, right from the US, which has not hesitated to share really good stuff to the Russsians.

We heard similar refrain from poster Liu, where he made this absurd claim that "1000s of drones will suddenly attack LCA", while still wanting us to believe we wont ask questions on stability of chinese datalinks or reliability of the drones etc. Or that absurd claim that china can give surplus heavy weapons to Indian terrorists, who will suddenly develop a heavy logistics chain to maintain the same, since chinese gear are generally maintenance heavy

This constant "we will retain thousands of shiny military gear in a war, while you will lose all" is childish and is a chinese form of trolling in these forums.

Umm...how many armored vehicles do you think the Taliban or ISIS have? The US can eradicate any state, China included, if it really wants to. It's a matter of intent for them, not a matter of capability. China would suffer plenty of losses in such a war against India, my point is that China can replace these losses as they're almost all built completely in China.

BTW, what system does China produce still depend on European suppliers? Russian I'll give you that, but the number is dwindling by the day and Chinese replacements, albeit inferior, are available for the most part. With the whole-sale moving of Motor-Sich to Chongqing, soon they'll be available for every part.

How large are your oil and gas reserves and how will you transport them to 5km heights when you have a naval blockade? All those shiny new toys will be a bit stranded without fuel or do you know Hu has a LiPo set for tanks and other toys?

DavidD wrote:Why do you think China would care to hold onto Lhasa? Tibet is a buffer, it's not ground to hold at all costs, it's ground to bleed invaders dry. As mentioned in UB's post in the China thread, the Russians didn't care to hold onto Moscow, they used it to bleed Napolean. 100,000 Tibetans will produce 100,000 1 year olds in 1 year, you expect them to make a difference?

This is the nastiest thing anybody have said about communist china. This clearly shows what kind of people chinese are and how much they value human lives. disgusting ...

DavidD, since china has no war experience it is natural for you to talk about years long wars. It seems that all the war knowledge is from the WWII comics.

Just FYI, in real wars the losing soldiers surrender too. In 1971 war we managed to get - well not many but - only 93000 POWs. And that sealed the victory for us. It's another thing that we didn't kill them (so that you can call that a 'skirmish') but this generosity cannot be promised for everytime and everyone .

China however is welcom to keep sending more and more POWs to our way while manufacturing more and more war machines efficiently and quickly without conceding the defeat. But last I checked, china is not so good in producing men that quickly .

TKiran wrote:DavidD, we are going to cut China to its size, we are going to liberate Tibet and Xinjiang, you are still thinking that India will confine itself to Indian borders like we always did, you have not learnt a lesson, learn how we liberated Bangladesh, in 16 days, you will be wise. Yes China would still be surviving with shrunk mass, but that's the limit of Han. Everything non Han will be liberated, you don't know the power of people, you never experienced democracy.

It will not take more than a week to occupy Lhasa and dislodge PLA, you are thinking of 1 year, that's laughable. 1,00, 000 Tibetans from India Will produce those many Tibetans in Lhasa in 1year. Lhasa is just 200 km from Tawang and 300 km from Doklam. It's thousands of km from Han China. It's China that needs to lob nuclear weapons at Lhasa if at all Han are serious to hold on to Tibet, still they will not be able to hold on to Lhasa. That's the reason why Han are sh***ing in their pants now, India can cut them to size, that's the fear, they don't have any body who can save them, if India marched to Lhasa.

Why do you think China would care to hold onto Lhasa? Tibet is a buffer, it's not ground to hold at all costs, it's ground to bleed invaders dry. As mentioned in UB's post in the China thread, the Russians didn't care to hold onto Moscow, they used it to bleed Napolean. 100,000 Tibetans will produce 100,000 1 year olds in 1 year, you expect them to make a difference?

Yeah I know, Han don't care to hold on to Lhasa. We will give Tibet to Dalai Lama and keep our army there for eternity, till we get dry, that will never happen. We are going to play the buffer game, and the Han will watch for eternity. Actually we can play the buffer game better as Lhasa is closer to us than Han

DavidD wrote:How long do you think the few hundred MKIs, etc. will last in a war say to take Tibet? How long will a couple thousand T-90s last? Most will be gone within a year, and I'm being generous with the timeline. How will you go about replacing them? Can you count on the Russians, French, etc. to keep up the supplies? Can they keep up even if they wanted to?

I am coming back to this point because this is a topic that has interested me for ages, and there is much to write.

Going back in history the value of "equipment" like trucks, tanks and aircraft have become a factor for just over 100 years. Before that time wars were fought between armed militias/armies and the winner would typically be the force that could outlast the other in supply of armed men ready to fight along with food and other supplies. World war 1 was little more of this.

The real war where nations went and hammered and hammered and hammered each other and their civilian centers and industrial sites was world war 2. And despite the rhetoric that the ability to keep on producing more and more tanks and planes won the war (because of America) it was not that at all. Even in the last year of the European war the Germans produced something like 2500 aircraft. It was finally the loss of men and territory that got them. The same holds true for the Japanese. they did not stop at all until nukes ended the war.

Another similar war that lasted 8 years was the Iran-Iraq war. Here both sides were supplied by the west. During that war I used to drive by an arms factory in Manchester that was merrily supplying arms to both Iran and Iraq. It was just the continuous loss of human life that ended the war. Not the ability manufacture or the inability to import.

I think this is a good opportunity to understand the meaning and origins of asymmetric war. When you have one nation/entity that simply does not have the industrial might of another nation, they resort to tactics where the industrial superiority is neutralized but the fight goes on. Vietnam. the Taliban, Iraq, ISIS are all doing that. ISIS/Islam is doing that all over the world And in case anyone has not guessed - Pakistan is doing exactly that with India.

In the final analysis the "government" or the "ideology" that can withstand decades of loss of lives is likely to prevail, not necessarily democracy, dictatorship or other government system. It was not democracy that won world war 2. The Nazis folded up with their boss. It was not communism that won in Vietnam. The US opted out. So industrial might is important but definitely not the factor that helps sustain or win wars.

DavidD wrote:How long do you think the few hundred MKIs, etc. will last in a war say to take Tibet? How long will a couple thousand T-90s last? Most will be gone within a year, and I'm being generous with the timeline. How will you go about replacing them? Can you count on the Russians, French, etc. to keep up the supplies? Can they keep up even if they wanted to?

I am coming back to this point because this is a topic that has interested me for ages, and there is much to write.

Going back in history the value of "equipment" like trucks, tanks and aircraft have become a factor for just over 100 years. Before that time wars were fought between armed militias/armies and the winner would typically be the force that could outlast the other in supply of armed men ready to fight along with food and other supplies. World war 1 was little more of this.

The real war where nations went and hammered and hammered and hammered each other and their civilian centers and industrial sites was world war 2. And despite the rhetoric that the ability to keep on producing more and more tanks and planes won the war (because of America) it was not that at all. Even in the last year of the European war the Germans produced something like 2500 aircraft. It was finally the loss of men and territory that got them. The same holds true for the Japanese. they did not stop at all until nukes ended the war.

Another similar war that lasted 8 years was the Iran-Iraq war. Here both sides were supplied by the west. During that war I used to drive by an arms factory in Manchester that was merrily supplying arms to both Iran and Iraq. It was just the continuous loss of human life that ended the war. Not the ability manufacture or the inability to import.

I think this is a good opportunity to understand the meaning and origins of asymmetric war. When you have one nation/entity that simply does not have the industrial might of another nation, they resort to tactics where the industrial superiority is neutralized but the fight goes on. Vietnam. the Taliban, Iraq, ISIS are all doing that. ISIS/Islam is doing that all over the world And in case anyone has not guessed - Pakistan is doing exactly that with India.

In the final analysis the "government" or the "ideology" that can withstand decades of loss of lives is likely to prevail, not necessarily democracy, dictatorship or other government system. It was not democracy that won world war 2. The Nazis folded up with their boss. It was not communism that won in Vietnam. The US opted out. So industrial might is important but definitely not the factor that helps sustain or win wars.

JMT

Very true. It is national will or perhaps civilization will. Iran vs Iraq is a very good example - the waves of Iranian young men inspired by the Ayatollah walked and took massive casualties and blunted Iraqi superiority in weapons and tactics.

political and social islam continues to impress with its ability to mobilize armed fighters, move them around, fight to the finish even in adverse situations ... other than islamic countries which are perpetually at war ... the other ones with some battle exp lately post 1980 are usa, russia, india, vietnam, sri lanka .... soko and noko both claim to be uber tight and tougher than its twin, but remains to be seen. there are probably some pretty tough sob's in myanmar, mehico, brazil and colombia also in their anti drug govt units.

baki rest of the world has enjoyed a relative peace.

has a detailed operational war history of the sri lankan vs ltte war been written ? every war has its own cadence and need for adaptable tactics - who would have thought, the ltte even with clandestine help from colombo would have stood up to regular indian divisions with armour support and complete air superiority in surveillance.

Nato is a fig leaf. none but usa is capable of extended pitched combat. most of them cannot even get to the fight without US logistical support in transport, spares, refueling, ew and munitions. take standoff and tactical jammers for instance - usaf and usn own all such assets prowlers , growlers, rc135 and f16cj.

hnair wrote:DavidD is making no sense - US has a military that is magnitudes more capable than chinese ever were. And with serious intent and will to hurt not so capable opponents around the world. The US are visibly unable to eradicate armored vehicles from the hands of ISIS or even taliban, who has neither an air force, nor any industry to resupply. Yet he wants us to believe that china is going to wipe out thousands of tanks of India, who has actually got a formidable air force. All this without any losses to china

Chinese military cannot produce a handful of pivotal (including engines of frontline fighters) spares and is still dependent on a long string of European and Russian suppliers. And these are usually second string stuff, thanks to a bad reputation of copying. India, on the other hand, has a much more vast reservoir of weapons suppliers, right from the US, which has not hesitated to share really good stuff to the Russsians.

We heard similar refrain from poster Liu, where he made this absurd claim that "1000s of drones will suddenly attack LCA", while still wanting us to believe we wont ask questions on stability of chinese datalinks or reliability of the drones etc. Or that absurd claim that china can give surplus heavy weapons to Indian terrorists, who will suddenly develop a heavy logistics chain to maintain the same, since chinese gear are generally maintenance heavy

This constant "we will retain thousands of shiny military gear in a war, while you will lose all" is childish and is a chinese form of trolling in these forums.

Umm...how many armored vehicles do you think the Taliban or ISIS have? The US can eradicate any state, China included, if it really wants to. It's a matter of intent for them, not a matter of capability. China would suffer plenty of losses in such a war against India, my point is that China can replace these losses as they're almost all built completely in China.

BTW, what system does China produce still depend on European suppliers? Russian I'll give you that, but the number is dwindling by the day and Chinese replacements, albeit inferior, are available for the most part. With the whole-sale moving of Motor-Sich to Chongqing, soon they'll be available for every part.

you seem to be unaware of lead times involved in making complex machinery. do you think china can magically make 300 aircraft and 400 ships overnight?

here are the facts. as an aggressor who wishes to invade india, china will have to attack prepared defenses. otherwise it is a sitting duck in areas without cover. good turkey shoot for any adversary. against a prepared defender, china has to commit 3:1 troops to have a chance of winning.

indian troops hold the edge in terms of battle hardening, leadership and training. equipment deficiencies are being gradually made up.

where is your magical win?

china wants to show itself as the top dawg in Asia. all India has to do is blunt your edge and knock you off your perch by making it a stalemate.

the rest of Asia will automatically start pushing back against all your posturing & PRC will lose its so called pyschological advantage.

this is hilarious and just goes to show how clueless china is.its also alarming in that they seem to think bluster and bravura will intimidate the indian army and political leadership who will look to the indian army for inputs. an army which is engaged in a constant brutal war for supremacy on a contested border, routinely has its line units engage in mini-battles, with full autonomy, whose special forces are on near continuous deployment.. will be awed by a single exercise. by an army whose troops deserted their posts in UN conditions.one wonders how this obsessed with image PRC army and leadership will take their brinksmanship to.

China may replace all those shiny toys, but how are they replace the single son which it will loose in hundreds?

They better prepare for rampaging parents and 4 grandparents when their only son/grand son is going to be blown up in some godforsaken mountains thousands of miles from the Han-land.... send to their death by the Commies sitting in their cushy "hall of the people"

nam wrote:China may replace all those shiny toys, but how are they replace the single son which it will loose in hundreds?

They better prepare for rampaging parents and 4 grandparents when their only son/grand son is going to be blown up in some godforsaken mountains thousands of miles from the Han-land.... send to their death by the Commies sitting in their cushy "hall of the people"

china couldn't defeat the vietnam border forces.

now they think they can somehow win against the indian army.

people like davidd are brought up on too much theory and ignore the societal costs of what a protracted conflict will do for chinese communists grip on power.

india will unite behind the GOI with the fractured opposition sensing the national mood.

the chinese will devolve into partisan bickering with 11-jinpings opponents jockeying for power.

n-threats etc are a waste of effort because at the end of the day, india can now hit back.

if they escalate beyond a point, india will look towards cultivating a greater relationship with countries like the US. that will again be to china's detriment.

Karan M wrote:you seem to be unaware of lead times involved in making complex machinery. do you think china can magically make 300 aircraft and 400 ships overnight?

The other thing that I forgot to mention in my earlier post was related to this. Ultimately - even if you produce enough planes and equipment it is the attrition of people that takes a toll. The Japanese had some of the most highly trained and motivated pilots - but as time wore on that edge was lost and although they had planes they did not have the skilled pilots for even the trainers were dead. Then the planes were good only for Kamikaze.

Point #1 is that if there is a war, it is MUCH smarter for India to send its divisions deep into China to cut their logistics lines, than to try and defend against a foe that can mobilize far bigger force given enough time.

Point #2 is that the discussion so far here seems to focus on a defensive war where India fights in the Himalayas. Chinese sit fat and complacent thinking that their hinterland is safe from the Indian army. This is BS. Look on a map, and ask yourself the logical outcome of Vietnam-India collaboration. KunniMangalam (aka "kunming") was an ancient Indian trading post, with direct link to Guwahati and Aizawl. Can be reached by flat-land transport, OK maybe a few floating bridges on rivers, but a good point for armored divisions from India and Hanoi to converge.

My question is: what countries will take the massive numbers of Han refugees?

Last edited by UlanBatori on 22 Aug 2017 22:00, edited 1 time in total.

As I have been saying, Kunnimangalam (99.88E) is in Greater Indian territory (west of 100 deg. E longitude). It is the home of Quizhingamath Appukuttan, famous kalarippayattu exponent (after whom the current slum of Quijing seems to be named). Han have no business being in this Undisputedly Indian territory, and need to leave while they still can.

Karan M wrote:you seem to be unaware of lead times involved in making complex machinery. do you think china can magically make 300 aircraft and 400 ships overnight?

The other thing that I forgot to mention in my earlier post was related to this. Ultimately - even if you produce enough planes and equipment it is the attrition of people that takes a toll. The Japanese had some of the most highly trained and motivated pilots - but as time wore on that edge was lost and although they had planes they did not have the skilled pilots for even the trainers were dead. Then the planes were good only for Kamikaze.

Hope GOI, Defense planners, and the services are preparing the armed forces for a long drawn war (beyond 4 months), with highs and lows during the period. The army, airfare and the Navy should be ready for the long haul. If war takes place and India can play ball for 3 or 4 months it will be an emphatic Indian victory, and India will become a permanent enemy of China.

Permanent enemy of hu? U mean Hana, east of 100 deg. E longitude. And all their dear friends and neighbors who love them so much will take the opportunity to do what India would hesitate to do: devastate the south-east coastal belt. I guess swimming across to North Korea or trying to go to South Korea as Boat People is a viable alternative to famine. Maybe the Russians will take them in - the area south of Vladivostok could use a lot of subsistence labor to build roads and railroads.

The Thais, Myanmarese, Laotians, Kampucheans, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Indonestians, Filipinos, will all celebrate liberation from The Bully along with the newly-liberated Uttar Dharmasala, newly-reunited Greater Mongolia and Greater Turkestan. Bangladesh will appreciate the new Eastern Highway and extension of Eastern Railways across BD and Myanmar to Hanoi.

Hong Kong will beg for return as a British Protectorate. Hainan will beg to merge with Taiwan

China on Tuesday said there will be "utter chaos" if its troops entered India

For once I agree 400% with Gobar Crimes. They won't know if they are coming or going. Half of them will immediately go AWOL and seek asylum. The rest will get totally lost. Delhi pickpockets will grab their copies of the Thoughts of Winnie The Pooh Chairman Eleven. Their cellphones won't work so they won't be able to call Momma for advice.

Which side of the road do they drive in China? Probably the American side since they ape Americans as much as possible, even adopting names to replace the beautiful names of the ancient culture that the commies erased.

The military solution is similar to what we did to East Pakistan, in 16days. Just capture Lhasa, instal Dalai Lama and recognize Tibet as independent country.

Capturing Lhasa is ofcourse involves cutting supply line from Han China by hitting railway lines and roads and bridges.

It's as simple as that. China has to learn from history. We have to teach them this lesson.

As far as the boundaries of independent Tibet is concerned, it's upto Tibet to talk to Han China to arrive at amicable solution to border dispute between those countries. We don't need a blade of grass from Tibet.

TKiran wrote:The military solution is similar to what we did to East Pakistan, in 16days. Just capture Lhasa, instal Dalai Lama and recognize Tibet as independent country.

Capturing Lhasa is ofcourse involves cutting supply line from Han China by hitting railway lines and roads and bridges.

It's as simple as that. China has to learn from history. We have to teach them this lesson.

I tell you, the numbers are there. Once things get rolling, we will be surprised at how quickly we'll overwhelm their lines because for years we've been dhoti-shivering about their human waves. But nature is unforgiving. Tibet can't support large numbers and the tyranny of distance and altitude is greater than that of the CCP.

TKiran wrote:The military solution is similar to what we did to East Pakistan, in 16days. Just capture Lhasa, instal Dalai Lama and recognize Tibet as independent country.

Capturing Lhasa is ofcourse involves cutting supply line from Han China by hitting railway lines and roads and bridges.

It's as simple as that. China has to learn from history. We have to teach them this lesson.

I tell you, the numbers are there. Once things get rolling, we will be surprised at how quickly we'll overwhelm their lines because for years we've been dhoti-shivering about their human waves. But nature is unforgiving. Tibet can't support large numbers and the tyranny of distance and altitude is greater than that of the CCP.

So you mean to say it will be 18 day war to cut Han to their size, a'la Mahabharata, unlike 16 day war a'la East Pakistan, I will settle for whatever option you choose. But what is the talk bout 1year war DavidD is choosing? May be he is misinformed.

chola wrote:I tell you, the numbers are there. Once things get rolling, we will be surprised at how quickly we'll overwhelm their lines because for years we've been dhoti-shivering about their human waves. But nature is unforgiving. Tibet can't support large numbers and the tyranny of distance and altitude is greater than that of the CCP.

So you mean to say it will be 18 day war to cut Han to their size, a'la Mahabharata, unlike 16 day war a'la East Pakistan, I will settle for whatever option you choose. But what is the talk bout 1year war DavidD is choosing? May be he is misinformed.

I written before that we should retake everything lost in 1962 and then a bit more in defensible positions. 1962 MUST be rectified and this should be in the mind of every bharati leader we elect IMHO.

I think this could be achieved in days if not a few weeks. There are reports that we have 15/20 to 1 manpower advantages across the length and breadth of the border. The same advantage in aircraft. There are reports that PLAAF has only 24 J-10/J-11 in Tibet. There are only five airbases identified in Tibet. We have hundreds of aircraft from 30 IAF air fields close enough to support the border. The numbers are simply overwhelming.

That said, any further reach into the Tibetan plateau means we become subjected to the same long supply lines issues as Cheen has now. Each mile deeper into Tibet means coming closer to the PLAAF airbases in China proper and further away from our own.

Trying to detach all of Tibet would mean a full-on long term war of attrition since it would be serious enough to top their eastern concerns and make them redeploy.

So IMHO, a lightning quick war to rectify 1962 combined with a threaten blockade of chini trade traffic in the IOR would be profitable since it would quickly bring Cheen to the table and preclude a long term war of attrition.

Cheen is a non-warrior race. They are traders and shopkeepers. By crushing them absolutely and completely at the borders (but not posing an existential threat like the detachment of all of Tibet) and threatening IOR blockade, they'll sue for peace and go back to making money.

As I said before, this depends on them being rational non-warrior people interested in trade and profit over dogma unlike Pakis.

If they turn out to be as crazy as pakees then taking over the near borders and keeping our lines of communication short would be far more advantageous to us than slugging it out in the middle of the plateau.

At any rate, rectifying 1962 and occupying the best immediate defensible positions would put us in good stead in either case.